CA CA - Bob Harrod, 81, Orange County, 27 July 2009 - #11

[GrainneDhu]

I am trying to explain something I don't know much about here, so bear with me.

I was talking about this nation of missing persons with Mr Z. He went geeky on me and usually it bores me to tears. This time he said something really interesting.
I said how hard it was, when there were all these different systems, and how expensive and impossible it would be now for every local LE have someone to visit them, set up identical systems, then train someone to use them. How families of many missing people have to rely on people sitting down and finding the time to search different databases for their loved one.

Mr Z agreed, then told me his solution. You just set up a system that can read everyone else's missing person database. So it doesn't matter who you want to find, or the criteria you set (you could choose; date missing, age, hair colour, location). It would just read them all and then come up with the results in a nice, neat, chart. You could also read info on any new missing persons too, if the info is out there somewhere.

It's not as simple as it sounds and needs highly specialized skills. There's only a few people in the US who can do it. Anyway, Mr Z offered to build one for us, if we like. No idea about the nitty gritty details of it, but does anyone think that might be a good idea?

Zweibel, if Mr Z can do that, it would be such an incredibly good thing. As my (much loved) old boss would say, it would be another star for his crown in heaven.

I know nothing about writing programs and things like that. I do know that if it would take a significant investment of time, then it would not be difficult to get grants from one or more missing persons organisations to support him while he writes it.

... and not just missing persons organisations. I know someone who works somewhere, um, important. With huge amounts of money, some of which is spent on just such humanitarian projects. If he seriously has the skillz and the commitment, I will talk to my friend about how to funnel an appropriate amount of that money to him.

OMG.

I just realised I know someone else who could also help if Mr Z would need consultation with the FBI.

Man, when I start thinking of how to start shaking the grapevine, I start realising that he could be showered with money for writing such a program (or a client or an app or whatever the heck it is they call these things nowadays). It doesn't sound like money would be his motivator but let's be realistic, the two of you do need to live while this project is going. And knowing computers, etc, and how databases seem to multiply, maintenance would be an ongoing concern.

 

[GrainneDhu]

That's terrible. Just terrible. Bad enough to have a missing loved one, but to have them ignored.....that would drive me insane. I honestly would go completely mad until someone started looking. And I can't even imagine what might happen if someone tried that with GrainneDhu.

My mama taught me never to get mad, just get even. And my mama was never wrong.

The most recent example was when I discovered my brother had apparently lost his mind when he married his second wife and had stopped supporting his daughter from his first marriage (it's a long story and he was no longer legally obligated but there were conditions that made it an ethical obligation, in my opinion).

The email started between his first wife and I. Once I was convinced of the particulars, I started adding people to the emails. The first one I added was my brother, of course. He tried to ignore me for almost two weeks, as I slowly added in more and more people. He finally broke when I added his second wife to the group and asked for her parents' email addresses.

He knew I'd find out their email addresses. And he knew I'd do it.

All one has to do is to be persistent and keep turning up the heat, increment by increment. Eventually the frog really will jump out of the pot (it's a myth that if you do it slowly, the frog will cook itself).

 

[zwiebel]

So glad I managed to make it clear, GrainneDhu. The idea of showering Mr Z with money is a nice one, but it wouldn't work. You'd be better off offering him a homebaked cake, or a game of chess.
Truth is, the trick is to pique his interest, and it's piqued (that spelling looks wrong).
It's your contacts and knowledge that will help though. I expect he'll make a start in the next week, it will take some time but the only help he'll need there is knowing what we need to know. So there may be a few questions coming your way that aren't on my usual subject!
ETA - he definitely has the skills. As I said, a few people in the States can do what he does. And they'd all recommend him.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Someone recently reminded me of this post-I dont know if the thread on the WWW exists anymore, but it was recorded with a screen grab I am sure:



Sally Sue had self identified as one of Bob's daughters.

If we accept this post to be true, two pair of Bob's glasses should be missing...one a pair of bifocals. So is the belief of the family that Bob had 6 pair of glasses? Because, IIRC, 4 were found in the home...so if two were missing, than he must have had 6.

That seems like an extensive collection for a man who was so careful with his money. JMVHO.

There is something else odd about that account.

A significant percentage of people who need bifocals cannot adapt to them (something like 30%; it's far from a rare problem). For some people, they are downright dangerous when doing something like going down a staircase.

Most people who can't adapt do one of two things: they either get separate pairs of glasses or they get a second pair of glasses that are for reading only. The problem for most people who cannot adapt to bifocals is that they cannot use the lower (reading) portion of the lens comfortably. Using the upper (distance) portion of the lens is usually not the problem.

What Sally Sue described, though, is someone who got a pair of distance only lenses and used his bifocals for reading only. That is... unusual.

 

[GrainneDhu]

From what I gather, the NAMUS description of what Bob was wearing is very generic. It lists the obvious, his underwear and socks, and his accessories, plus his shoes. What they don't have any idea of is what he wore that day he disappeared which is why they can't give an accurate description of it. Either that or they have claimed they didn't see him that day so it would be a trip up to be able to say what he was wearing, IYKWIM.

His son-in-law, JeM, spent the day at Bob's house doing repairs. His daughter reported that she was speaking to JeM on the phone before noon that day and heard her father in the background making affirmative noises when JeM talked about going to Home Depot.

So JeM must have seen Bob. Perhaps JeM is one of those people who doesn't notice clothes. I'm one myself; I just tried to come up with a description of what my husband is wearing today and then called him into the room so I could see if I was accurate and I only got his shirt correct! So to me there's nothing innately suspicious about not being able to remember what someone was wearing.

The only suspicious thing is coming up with a description that is quite detailed if you really don't remember.

 

[zwiebel]

There is something else odd about that account.

A significant percentage of people who need bifocals cannot adapt to them (something like 30%; it's far from a rare problem). For some people, they are downright dangerous when doing something like going down a staircase.

Most people who can't adapt do one of two things: they either get separate pairs of glasses or they get a second pair of glasses that are for reading only. The problem for most people who cannot adapt to bifocals is that they cannot use the lower (reading) portion of the lens comfortably. Using the upper (distance) portion of the lens is usually not the problem.

What Sally Sue described, though, is someone who got a pair of distance only lenses and used his bifocals for reading only. That is... unusual.

So glad to hear I'm not the only one with that problem. I thought it was just me. Mine made me feel nauseous everytime I looked down. It was so bad I ended up throwing away the most expensive specs I'd ever owned.

 

[GrainneDhu]

So glad to hear I'm not the only one with that problem. I thought it was just me. Mine made me feel nauseous everytime I looked down. It was so bad I ended up throwing away the most expensive specs I'd ever owned.

Gosh, your optician or ophthalmologist should have told you that there was a good chance (1 in 3) that you couldn't adapt to bifocals! When I tried them, my doctor told me to get the cheapest pair I could and to give them a two month trial. If I could use them comfortably, then I could get a pair with nice frames, various coatings, etc, and save the el cheapo pair for back ups. As it turned out, I wasn't able to tolerate them at all and I saved quite a bit of money by getting the cheap ones to find out.

The gradient (no line) bifocals have a somewhat higher rate of adaptability but there are plenty of people who find they cannot tolerate those, either.

I still wish I knew why Bob had a separate set of distance lenses. I could understand it if they were sunglasses to use for driving but it sounds like they were clear lens glasses.

And why would Bob have accumulated so many pairs? At his age, there are usually not big changes in eyesight (cataracts set in slowly), so 6 pairs of glasses would have gone quite far back in time. Even at a conservative rate of change in prescription every three years, that would cover 18 years' worth of glasses. I'd be surprised to hear his prescription was changing that much that quickly but it is possible, I suppose.

Yet another oddity in a case that is full of them. <sigh>

 

[zwiebel]

BBM

Gosh, your optician or ophthalmologist should have told you that there was a good chance (1 in 3) that you couldn't adapt to bifocals! When I tried them, my doctor told me to get the cheapest pair I could and to give them a two month trial. If I could use them comfortably, then I could get a pair with nice frames, various coatings, etc, and save the el cheapo pair for back ups. As it turned out, I wasn't able to tolerate them at all and I saved quite a bit of money by getting the cheap ones to find out.

The gradient (no line) bifocals have a somewhat higher rate of adaptability but there are plenty of people who find they cannot tolerate those, either.

I still wish I knew why Bob had a separate set of distance lenses. I could understand it if they were sunglasses to use for driving but it sounds like they were clear lens glasses.

And why would Bob have accumulated so many pairs? At his age, there are usually not big changes in eyesight (cataracts set in slowly), so 6 pairs of glasses would have gone quite far back in time. Even at a conservative rate of change in prescription every three years, that would cover 18 years' worth of glasses. I'd be surprised to hear his prescription was changing that much that quickly but it is possible, I suppose.

Yet another oddity in a case that is full of them. <sigh>

Yes, it's possible. But both his daughter and neighbour have said he hadn't been going to his doctors/optician for many years, so......really don't see how or why he would have owned so many pairs of glasses. Unless someone's counting skills are on a par with their timeline skills.

ETA: My optician might well have told me. In German. And I probably just nodded my head as though I understood every word they were saying, knowing me!

 

[mikkismom]

Gosh, your optician or ophthalmologist should have told you that there was a good chance (1 in 3) that you couldn't adapt to bifocals! When I tried them, my doctor told me to get the cheapest pair I could and to give them a two month trial. If I could use them comfortably, then I could get a pair with nice frames, various coatings, etc, and save the el cheapo pair for back ups. As it turned out, I wasn't able to tolerate them at all and I saved quite a bit of money by getting the cheap ones to find out.

The gradient (no line) bifocals have a somewhat higher rate of adaptability but there are plenty of people who find they cannot tolerate those, either.

I still wish I knew why Bob had a separate set of distance lenses. I could understand it if they were sunglasses to use for driving but it sounds like they were clear lens glasses.

And why would Bob have accumulated so many pairs? At his age, there are usually not big changes in eyesight (cataracts set in slowly), so 6 pairs of glasses would have gone quite far back in time. Even at a conservative rate of change in prescription every three years, that would cover 18 years' worth of glasses. I'd be surprised to hear his prescription was changing that much that quickly but it is possible, I suppose.

Yet another oddity in a case that is full of them. <sigh>

FWIW, my DH is just shy of 50. He has 3 pair (!) of glasses he uses now (sunglasses, bifocals and distance), 1 previous pair that is broken, 1 pair of prescription safety glasses and an old pair from the 80's that I can kind-of see through.

He does change glasses with the 'styles' though. I just don't think the # of glasses is an issue. For myself, I have my distance glasses (transitions) but need to use reading glasses for close up work. I also have an old pair because finding my glasses and keys is the most difficult thing I do each day. :floorlaugh:

jmo

Where is Bob?

 

[zwiebel]

FWIW, my DH is just shy of 50. He has 3 pair (!) of glasses he uses now (sunglasses, bifocals and distance), 1 previous pair that is broken, 1 pair of prescription safety glasses and an old pair from the 80's that I can kind-of see through.

He does change glasses with the 'styles' though. I just don't think the # of glasses is an issue. For myself, I have my distance glasses (transitions) but need to use reading glasses for close up work. I also have an old pair because finding my glasses and keys is the most difficult thing I do each day. :floorlaugh:

jmo

Where is Bob?

Do you ever find lost glasses where I do, the top of my head?

I suppose establishing the number of glasses Bob owned should, in theory, help to establish if was wearing any the day he disappeared. But establishing anything solid in this case is proving so elusive. Sigh.

 

[believe09]

Fair enough on the collection of glasses-but then I would refocus myself on the unequivocal statement in Sally Sue's post that he would have two pair of glasses available when he walked out the door.

Then again we have a NAMUS profile that indicates he may have left without them. Given the size of the lenses that Bob wore, it seems safe to say he genuinely needed them to see, so I would be very puzzled if he opted to leave the house in his white shorts, white belt, white knee socks, white sneakers, white v neck undershirt, hat, wallet, keys and unknown shirt...yet he wouldnt have his glasses with him.

Should we chalk up an inconsistency on the glasses as well?

The clothing thing-as GrainneDhu pointed out, it is pretty detailed for a guess, and not detailed enough for someone who actually knew what he was wearing.

And why was he wearing a hat in the house? I suppose I would remember that detail as well if it actually happened.

 

[believe09]

One additional point-someone at the heated family meeting noticed that his hair had grown out some.

I cant decide if this is a subtle way of implying he was off to have his hair cut when he disappeared from the face of the earth. The other thing that I find interesting is that she put the phone call info in with such detail.

Who was that for? I dont know that I have ever seen a detail like that, but again the profiles are stressful for family to fill out...given their heartbreak and confusion at the time.

The person who enters a profile can usually edit it. I can edit the ones I have entered, fwiw.

 

[believe09]

Do you ever find lost glasses where I do, the top of my head?

I suppose establishing the number of glasses Bob owned should, in theory, help to establish if was wearing any the day he disappeared. But establishing anything solid in this case is proving so elusive. Sigh.

My money is on LE knowing if his glasses were still in the house. And that they were processed. JMVHO.

 

[believe09]

BBM



I'm still interested in how, when and under what circumstances this vehicle was seen. It seemed really important once - either as a suspicious vehicle, or maybe a witness to something suspicious? But you're right, all mention of it seems to have vanished. Like Bob.

I would LOVE to know when SIL saw the SUV...at least the time he claimed to see it driving on the wrong side of the street.

Once we retrofitted the timelines together, the only time he might have managed to see it, I think, was some time between his arrival and the alleged call/first trip to the hardware store, and prior to the 15 minutes or less Bob was in the house alone.

Actually I dont know how long Bob was alone in the house-I am going by JuM 12 or 1 comment and the arrival of CL and the alleged "responding in a favorable way" call.

:banghead:

Maybe we should start from scratch with what we do know? Honestly, if it werent for the non family phone call around 10AM that morning, I would swear this disappearance occurred much, much earlier.

 

[GrainneDhu]

BBM

Yes, it's possible. But both his daughter and neighbour have said he hadn't been going to his doctors/optician for many years, so......really don't see how or why he would have owned so many pairs of glasses. Unless someone's counting skills are on a par with their timeline skills.

ETA: My optician might well have told me. In German. And I probably just nodded my head as though I understood every word they were saying, knowing me!

Then those six pairs of glasses covered more than 18 years. Very strange.

I know what you mean about nodding and smiling. I went bilaterally deaf and I have learned to fake understanding in non-crucial settings such as restaurants. Ah well, now you know and really, two pairs of ordinary glasses is about the same price as one souped up set of bifocals once you get done with frames, various coatings, etc.

 

[cloudajo]

Daughter PB entered the information into NamUs on August 18, 2009. Per the NamUs FAQ, she can log in and add information. Last Known Alive (LKA) was entered as 12:00.

From Case Report - NamUs MP # 2706 – Robert Merle Harrod

• Date LKA July 27, 2009 12:00
• Date entered 08/18/2009
• Circumstances He was at home and seemed in good spirits when I last spoke to him somewhere between 11 a.m. - 12pm. His son-in-law was there doing odd jobs as Dads new wife was returning from Missouri on Wed. 7/29/09. Heard son-in-law say he was going to the hardware store. When he returned the housekeeper was waiting outside and Dad was gone. He did NOT take his car, but did have his keys and wallet. No contact or word has been heard from since.
• Hair color Gray or Partially Gray
• Head hair Bald on top - around edges kept it very short, but the day before his disappearance had noticed it had grown out a little.
• Body hair Yes
• Facial hair Clean shaven
• Left eye color Blue
• Right eye color Blue
• Eye description His eyes are actually blue/gray
• Clothing White shorts, white knee socks, outer shirt unknown, always wore a v-neck undershirt, white belt, white hat
• Footwear Reebok tennis shoes (white)
• Jewelry Gold wedding band on left hand and possibly (not sure) was wearing his masonic ring on his right hand.
• Possible Masonic ring with a red stone behind the Masonic symbol
• Eyewear Yes - had to wear glasses to get around, might be without glasses, but we are not sure how many pair he had.
• Accessories None that I am aware of
• Dental; Status: Dental information / charting is available and entered
• DNA; Status: Sample submitted - Tests complete
• Fingerprint Information; Status: Fingerprint information is currently not available

Bob's NamUs Case Report: https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/case_report_html/2706
NamUs FAQ: https://www.findthemissing.org/en/homes/faq

 

[zwiebel]

That phone call and the conversation/overheard stuff. It really bothers me. I think it's a language thing. I know I've mentioned it before but;

daughter posted that: 'I told him (Bob) I would talk to him later'
on NAMUS: 'I overheard my BIL say he was going to the hardware store.'

That's precise language. Apparently repeating verbatim, details of what she and BIL said - and remember BIL isn't even on the phone, it seems he was just heard in the background.

And Bob's part of the conversation?

A 'favorable response'
And if you can even count this as a conversation, an impression that 'he'd had a lot of calls that morning'.

I cannot work out why two people's speech is recalled in such detail while Bob's is unformed, vague. I know people who do recount conversations in a vague way: 'Yes, we had a chat about the work, they'll turn up sometime next week or month - dunno how much it will cost.'

That's annoying. Maddening though, is the other type of recounted conversation: 'Well, I said....then he said that she said and I said...etc'.

I've just never heard a single conversation recounted both ways, by the same person. What was Bob actually saying? Was he just grunting or something?

The first time I noticed this, long before I joined WS and just started lurking, I thought I had it sorted immediately. Someone had made a simple mistake. What I was sure had happened was that Bob was going to the hardware store, WITH the SIL. Bob was downstairs, with his hat on, putting his glasses in his pocket. SIL's upstairs, measuring up precisely for, say, a new toilet. Bob has to go too, because maybe the bathroom fittings are coloured and he needs to choose the best match available?

Then the phone rings. Bob barks an answer, because he knows he has to leave in a few minutes. He just grunts replies because he wants to get daughter off the phone. Then SIL comes downstairs, not realizing Bob's taking a call, and says loud enough for daughter to hear; 'WE can go to the hardware store now.'

I soon found out I was wrong, because SIL says so and also, Bob would have put the key in the mailbox for the cleaner if he was going out. But just for a little while, I satisfied myself about that phone call.

 

[believe09]

Circumstances He was at home and seemed in good spirits when I last spoke to him somewhere between 11 a.m. - 12pm. His son-in-law was there doing odd jobs as Dads new wife was returning from Missouri on Wed. 7/29/09. Heard son-in-law say he was going to the hardware store. When he returned the housekeeper was waiting outside and Dad was gone. He did NOT take his car, but did have his keys and wallet. No contact or word has been heard from since.

This is just bizarre. I mean, really bizarre. BUT-I have to factor in the shock factor of a family member...except this was weeks later after everyone had given or not given a statement.

 

[zwiebel]

This is just bizarre. I mean, really bizarre. BUT-I have to factor in the shock factor of a family member...except this was weeks later after everyone had given or not given a statement.

Also, one other tiny little thing; 'His son-in-law', when she could equally well have said; 'My brother-in-law'.

'His SIL' just sounds, I don't know, a little distancing, somehow?

 

[zwiebel]

While I'm still on my, 'little things that have bugged me', thing - I wonder who is officially responsible for stating that Bob's wallet and keys were missing?

It can't be SIL because he wasn't overly concerned on the day so would hardly have checked for Bob's wallet and keys. And he didn't return to the house after. I don't know about two of the daughters, but we know JuM and AH were definitely in the house following Bob's disappearance. So I suppose one of them must have been responsible for reporting that information to the police? Unless it was the daughter who also made the NAMUS report?